Former banker flips out on democracy??!

Inesis Feiferis, an experienced banker who recently resigned as head of the Latvian Mortgage and Land Bank (Latvijas Hipotēku un zemes banka) told the portal Delfi that "many democratic norms should be restricted" during the present economic crisis.
In the article, the ex-banker, who was involved in the state takover of crisis-ridden Parex Bank (it was formally made a subsidiary of the state-owned Mortgage and Land Bank) does not elaborate on which norms he meant. However, freedom of speech, the press and assembly do come to mind as core democratic norms and values.
Feiferis seems to suggest that a government with emergency powers should be formed to adopt unpopular measures quickly and without needless discussion. Whether this means there would be censorship or punishment of media criticism of such measures is unclear. The apparent lack of aggressive questioning of the ex-banker by Delfi's reporters is yet another example of the spotty reporting on this site.
So I will give Inesis Feiferis the benefit of the doubt. When he resigned, Feiferis seemed to imply that he was tired, perhaps burned out by the demands of his job at the Mortgage and Land Bank, especially after the Parex rescue.
The statement on restricting democratic norms is so batshit on its face that I do suspect it is the careless chatter of a burnout. Take a needed rest.

Security police drop charges against Smirnovs

The Latvian Security Police (Drošības policija/DP) have dropped their case against the economist Dmitrijs Smirnovs, who was jailed for questioning late last year because of critical remarks about the Latvian banking system and the national currency, the lat, according to media reports.

Pending completion of their investigation, the DP banned Smirnovs from foreign travel and, by his own admission, had a chilling effect on his public statements and publications after the arrest. The case brought disgrace on Latvia as a violator of free expression and was the inspiration for this blog.

Smirnovs told journalists he has not changed his pessimistic view of the Latvian economy -- last October, he advised people not to keep their money in Latvian banks or in lats in a panel discussion reported by a Ventspils newspaper, triggering his detention more than a month later.

The DP also called in Valters Fridenbergs, a musician, for questioning because of jokes he cracked to a concert audience about not running off to the nearest cash dispenser (bankomat) because of worries about the Latvian economy and currency. Charges against him were dropped some months ago.

Latvia seeks to upgrade thought police, increase the chill

The Latvian government is considering a proposal to increase the powers of the Security Police to question and issue warnings to persons whose behavior "shows signs of illegal activity that could harm state security" according to a recent report (in Latvian) in Diena.

If adopted, the expanded powers -- aimed clearly at speech and expression, not actions-- would increase the chilling effect of the Security Police on free expression and debate. It would allow Security Police officers to question persons (including a summons to police facilities) and demand "explanations" for their activity.

The Security Police have already shown that their threshold for intervention against expression is at times very low and inconsistent. Last fall, the Security Police detained Dmitrijs Smirnovs, a college economics lecturer, for saying in a public discussion that he though people should not keep money in Latvia's banks nor Latvian lats. The authorities also questioned a musician who joked about not running off to take money out the bank during a concert. These incidents brought international attention to violations of freedom of expression by the Latvian Security Police.

Since then, there have been hundreds of mentions and discussions of the possible devaluation of the lat, the soundness of the Latvian financial system, and the wisdom of Latvia's economic policies, ranging from Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, The Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times (the former all being beyond the reach of the Security Police) to statements by local economists (Alf Vanags of BICEPS) and many bloggers and internet commentators. Except for Smirnovs, no one that I know of has been detained.

There have been cases of the Security Police acting against persons expressing radical political views, notably a neo-Nazi writing under the pen name Fenikss. His interrogation by the Security Police several weeks ago (the second in a year) indicates that the police of "prophylactic talks" dating back to the Soviet perestroika era KGB, was already being applied.

Before the late 1980s, the KGB would simply arrest dissidents, but it discovered (given its past as an all powerful institution of terror and repression) that it could silence or dampen dissent by the chilling effect alone. It was enough to have a talk with the KGB over coffee or tea to make one wonder whether expressing one's views was the smart thing to do.

Now the Security Police, looking more and more like the "liberal" era KGB (as it takes on the function of "overseeing" economic and political debate in society) is about to be handed more powers to exercise the "chilling effect" -- one of the most powerful arguments against any restrictions on free speech under at least US First Amendment practice. In other words, the mere threat of trouble will prevent people from speaking or writing who would otherwise do so.

Having, for the time being, abandoned its efforts to repress discussion of the economy and currency, the Security Police is now apparently being prepared to go after persons who discuss forms of resistance and disobedience to the current government's policies of extreme, sudden, and seemingly capricious cuts in public services and entitlements, effectively closing down the national health care system, reducing public education to a minimum and slashing pensions.

What the government fears is that there will be public discussion of such things as civil disobedience, tax resistance (why pay for nothing) and, of course, the harsher issue of street violence and rebellion as the fall draws closer and perhaps tens of thousands of Latvians will lose their unemployment benefits. While I believe violence will solve nothing, I think the possibility of new riots should be freely and openly discussed, without the Security Police interfering. If a person who has lost their job and unemployment benefit, who has seen one parent deprived of elective surgery and another retired but working relative (perhaps a surgeon) driven from their job by pension cuts, who sees their child's math teacher paid less than a street sweeper, that person understandably should be able to talk about the Latvian government and state in the words of the Bloodhound Gang: We don't need no water let the motherfucker burn!

Freedom and confidentiality in media transactions

I thought for a while about where to put this and decided to post, initially, to the Free Speech Emergency blog because media are one of the most important vessels of free speech. I don't, presently, see any serious free speech issues in the sale of the Latvian media group Diena and the business newspaper Dienas bizness by the Swedish Bonnier Business Press to what will eventually be a mutual fund with investments in Baltic media.

The controversy about this in the Latvian media has arisen from the apparent structure of the transaction. The Bonniers were so eager to sell their Latvian assets that they wanted to do it before the buyer came into legal existence. That is, the Luxembourg-based Catella Media Investment Fund has not been legally founded yet. In order to seize the opportunity, the Estonian financier Kalle Norberg and the Latvian former executive of Diena some years ago, Aleksandrs Tralmaks, organized a temporary arrangement to buy and hold the assets until the final ownership structure was in place.

They also needed to fund the transaction, rumored to be around LVL 9 million, and what they seem to have done is a variation on when an ordinary citizen is offered a chance to buy something two weeks before payday. She doesn't have the cash on hand, but borrows it from several neighbors. They then, technically, become "investors" in "today only" discounted flat-screen television until the end of the month, when our real buyer is paid and pays off her neighbors. Is it important to know who these neighbors are?

OK, I am simplifying the process with Diena and Dienas bizness, but as I understand it, two of the future owners and investors are already known -- Kalle Norberg and Alexandes Tralmaks. They have put up some of their own money. The other investors, who have, for various reasons, wanted to remain anonymous, but both their and Norberg and Tralmaks' shares in the media assets will change when the mutual fund is set up. As more money comes into the fund, which, presumably, will become owner of all shares in the Latvia media assets, the relative ownership proportion of the initial investors will be diluted and will change on a day-to-day basis, as will the identities and number of all owners of shares in Catella Media Investment. Mutual funds trade on a daily basis.

Let us make a wild guess and say that a certain Niklas Z of Skype fame lent USD 500 000 to the transaction entity. When the mutual fund becomes operational, Niklas Z' s loan will be changed into shares of Catella, and the asset that he and all the other mystery men and women will directly own will be shares in a mutual fund. In the short term, of course, most or all of Catella's capital will be invested in Diena and Dienas bizness, but there could be additional purchases of media assets in the future.

Mutual funds are pure instruments of financial investment -- I put my money in fund A, whose managers and investment strategy I trust, and expect to see growth of, say, 40 % when I sell my fund shares in five years. In the interim, the fund, for all I care, can finance chipmunk races and crocodile choir contests, as long as I get my expected return on investment. I am not interested in owning or influencing the management and strategy of any of the fund' s assets, otherwise I would buy those shares directly, in sufficient amounts and put myself or my representative on the board of Chipmunk Racers R Us.

If and when someone in the Latvian media gets a leaked copy of the transaction related investment agreement, it will probably include a rather dull list of Estonian, Danish, Swedish and British names -- Veiko, Tarmo, Niklas, Samantha, whatever. And, certainly, the media will have full freedom to publish this "scoop" and should be protected from lawsuits or prosecution should that happen.

In short, I think the uproar over who the mystery investors in the transactions is overblown and too much energy is put into exploring conspiracy theories. It is certainly necessary to have transparency in media ownership, but things should shortly fall into place. Of course, I could be wrong and the real owners of Diena and Dienas bizness are Elvis Presley, Borat and three Russian oligarchs.

There are bigger f**kwits...

There are bigger fuckwits than Latvia's parliamentarians, but given time, our Lithuanian (or leiši, a kind of very mild Latvian racist term for the folks to the south) brethren may well lose that honor. The Lithuanian parliament has passed a law forbidding "favorable" discussion of homosexuality. which, in classic chilling-effect terms, forbids any discussion at all. It brings back old Latvian prejudices of an ignorant, impoverished rabble of provincial peasants (a la Lithuanian/leišu beggars wailing by the church -- a folkloric Latvian phrase -- gaudo kā leišu nabagi pie baznīcas). The law seems to have passed with an overwhelming majority. These folks really believe in this kind of repression.
Alas, Lithuania, formally, is a modern European Union member state, just as Latvia is. But Latvia, too busy with its intractable economic disaster (and spinning the wheels of a downward spiral with frantic budget cuts) would probably do the same. Certainly, Riga's near future deputy mayor, Aunārs Šlesers -- hey, I meant Ainārs :), Latvians will get the joke of that Freudian misspelling-- will try to ban any activities discussing sexual minorities in his city-state.
Meanwhile, with drafting its own anti-gay-speech law on the back burner, Latvia has enough trouble with one of Sweden's leading dailies, Expressen, demanding in an unsigned (a view of the paper's editorial board) editorial to Stop Latvian Censorship Now.* The paper refers to a law that forbids spreading false information about the national currency and the financial system. One of Expressen's recent guest opinion writers, the Latvian economics lecturer Dmitrijs Smirnovs, was arrested last fall for warning, in a public forum reported by a regional newspaper, that people should not keep their money in Latvian lats or Latvian banks. For this, he was detained for two days by the Latvian Security Police, in an action that made them a renewed version of the Soviet KGB.
Expressen now writes that Sweden's Finance Minister Anders Borg should make financial assistance to Latvia contigent on a repeal of Latvia's restrictions on free speech. "Instead of devaluing the lat, Latvia has devalued the freedom of expression," the Swedish daily wrote.
One can only agree. After all, the Smirnovs case was the reason for starting this blog. There is still reason to continue it.

* link in Swedish

Anti-free speech party to rule in Riga

Latvia's First Party/Latvia's Way (Latvijas Pirmā Partija/Latvijas Ceļš --LPP/LC) took slightly over 15 % of the vote for city council in Riga and will probably be the sole coalition partner for the winner, the Harmony Center electoral alliance, which took more than 33 % of the vote.
Whatever other positions the LPP/LC may have taken on economic and other political issues, on free speech this party is clearly authoritarian and cryptofascist. Leading members of the LPP/LC called for and supported bans on peaceful Gay Pride marches in the Latvian capital. The issue with Gay Pride is not whether one likes, dislikes or is indifferent to homosexuality, but strictly one of the freedom of speech and assembly. The LPP/LC is a party that wants to restrict the rights of all Latvian residents to choose what points of view they may or may not hear. That is, as I pointed out earlier, the other side of the free speech rights of any particular point of view -- the right of other to hear or ignore that viewpoint without interference from municipal or government authorities.
Ainārs Šlesers, who may become mayor of Riga, has declared that he would ban all future gay pride events. Again, putting aside the specific issue of gay rights, homosexuality, etc., it shows that Šlesers is an authoritarian backed by religious fanatics who advocate a theocracy instead of a democracy with individual freedom.
There are, of course, other reasons to worry about Šlesers as mayor, including a long list of scandals and dubious dealings that have been documented by Delna, the Latvian unit of the anti-corruption organization Transparency International. But for the purposes of this blog, the main threat from the coalition of Harmony Center (Saskaņas Centrs/SC ) and LPP/LC is to the freedom of speech and assembly. I doubt that SC will rein in Šlesers on this issue. Latvian society is profoundly ignorant and backwards in its understanding of democracy and homophobic as well. It is precisely for this reason, that the free speech rights of those advocating an, in this case, unpopular viewpoint, must be protected but probably will not be protected and, instead, repressed by the upcoming city administration in Riga.

Fools' speech is free speech too, especially for Latvian-Americans

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that a Chicago-area (the USA, the land of the First Amendment) emigre (or the fashionable diaspora) Latvian group supporting Ainars Šlesers for mayor of Riga has been hounded out of existence by elements of the American Latvian community. This was to a large extent triggered by a somewhat indignant story in the Latvian daily Diena, which apparently is read and respected by the diaspora 

Don't get me wrong, there is no way I support Šlesers and his theocratic, holy-roller cryptofascist Latvian First Party/dessicated corpse of the once-liberal Latvian Way (LPP/LC). But that does not mean that people don't have the right to think and say that Šlesers is the greatest fuckin' thing since machine-sliced cheese. That is what free speech and a diversity of opinion are all about. As for the American Latvian Association "distancing" itself from the pro-Šleseristas in Chi-town, well, Maryland is already pretty distant. It would have been better to say: "we make no political endorsements and urge all Latvian citizens, be they in Latvia or abroad, to vote for the candidates of their choice." (SEE AMENDMENT BELOW)  As for others who had objections to the Šleseristas -- well, organize a debate, put up a website, go to www.latviansonline.com or some such place and argue against Šlesers of for one of the other candidates. Yo, like the States is a democracy and has plenty of room for wacko opinions! And if  the diasporistas really follow what is going on here, down at the grass roots, they should know that this place is a real political Wackostan. Supporting Šlesers pales beside some of the crackpottery available here.

And finally, to the lawyers Blumbergs and the grab-bag of Latvian-American accountants, public servants, salesmen etc, WTF are you so chickenshit? If you really believe in Bro Ainars, don't fold the first time the wind blows against you. Tell ALA to ... well, I am reminded of  T-shirt I saw at the American Latvian Song Festival in 1978 -- it was worn by a friend of my from Germany and his brother as a protest against an ultraconservative relative of theirs. The custom shirts said Arvīd, ej tu dirst! The best translation I can come up with is  "Arvid, go fuck yourself!" 

So guys and gals from Chi-town, come out from under the table or bed or wherever you went after the first round of criticism, and put on your Arvīd T-shirts (aimed at those diasporistas who hounded you) on the front, and a picture of the stone-faced (ķieģelpurns) Ainārs on the back.

ADDED June 2, morning, Latvian time: 

It seems that ALA did make the kind of statement I mention above, a kind reader informs. I was basing this on the Diena report, where to "distance one's self" suggests disapproval and disagreement, like when football team X says "we are glad about winning the championship, but distance ourselves from those fans who decided to burn down the town hall and 20 cars in celebration."